[governance] IG caucus - participation issues

Thu Nov 24 08:12:17 EST 2005

Laina,

I really don't appreciate your email.  Just my personal opinion, but 
I'm particularly tired of your attacks on Jeanette.  She doesn't 
deserve it, no one does, we've all worked too hard.

I can't think of a more open, transparent and inclusive WSIS civil 
society group than this caucus. It's been hard work, sometimes 
frustrating. But it's also been good to see the caucus contribute so 
much to WSIS, and it's been great getting to know, like, trust and 
respect many people through the process.

I know the caucus has some very opinionated participants, but 'new 
members' break-in by being equally opinionated. And the last time 
someone did that they (rightly) changed the course of about 2 years 
discussion. That stung for a while, but we got over it. If we ever 
gave ourselves more time for discussion rather than running up 
against our deadlines then the environment might relax. Perhaps 
things will improve now we aren't reacting to an intergovernmental 
process.

I'm sorry you weren't able to join any of the caucus meetings. 
Perhaps if you had tried to communicate your schedule in plain text 
rather than a 420kb jpg file someone might have noticed you weren't 
available.  One of your earlier emails suggests you knew about the 
2nd meeting so I'm confused as to why you would say otherwise.

Anyway, to be honest, I have no interest in whether you think I 
should stay on as coordinator or not. Jeanette and I agreed long ago 
we'd do this together. If that's OK with the caucus then we're 
grateful for any continued vote of confidence, it means a lot and 
we'll stay on for the transition.  If not, then that's also fine, 
we'll move on and see what we can all make of the IG Forum. I'm just 
tired of your uninformed criticism and back-stabbing.

My apologies to all for this email, but I'm sick of the unpleasantness.

Thanks,

Adam

At 9:53 AM -0800 11/23/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:
>
>Dear Milton,
>
>Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason here and not ignoring Guru's
>email. Having said that, I do think we do have some serious issues of
>participation and process that we need to address as we move forward. Whilst
>I totally understand that you may be right about Jeanette's commitment to
>openness and consensus building, it usually is processes and perceptions
>that allow such inclusion and participation from all. There are many who
>checked out from discussions seeing statements as was quoted by Guru in the
>email below. These do NOT help people feel included at all, and many like
>Rhonda have even mentioned how they feel ignored.
>
>I myself have been involved in building consensus in Asia over the earlier
>days of Internet Governance debates (during the Green, White paper, IFWP,
>etc) and understand TOTALLY the frustration of feeling "disrupted" by new
>voices. But there is always a way to handle this to allow people to feel
>included e.g. to give a quick summary of previous discussions pros and cons,
>and try to understand the position being expounded by the person and see how
>this can be included. It is often the process that ensures the outcome is
>the right one. True, this list being open and having so many people, it is
>hard to build rough consensus. However, having no clear archive means to
>review past debates, makes it harder for "new" participants to see what was
>discussed and compromised from before, so this should not be held against
>them. "older" players however SHOULD NOT also dismiss new participants at
>all or assume they don't know what they are talking about.
>
>Hence, I do strongly believe that several issues are important for
>consideration in the steps forward:
>
>1) there is validity to Avri's suggestion on smaller groups with membership
>so there can be "likeminded" people making "likeminded" positions (I had
>actually suggested this for WSIS but there was a strong need to try to
>represent all CS instead of a likeminded group. I saw governments and
>private sector doing this so why not CS)
>
>2) process has to be clear and some level of Netiquette adopted so people
>can disagree without being offensive and coordinators should find a way to
>summarize and include positions made by people rather than ignore them-
>there has to be a culture that allows for open discussion and disagreement
>without fear of retribution or insults- and this can then lead to better
>decisions or compromises made as people will feel like contributing (see
>Danny and others like him (including me) who stopped contributing due to the
>lack of such an open culture on the list)
>
>3) process has to be clear for both offline and online. It was very ironical
>that those who did not attend Tunis were better informed than many of us who
>were in Tunis. I missed both IG meetings as it was originally scheduled for
>Thursday at 10am and then got cancelled to a later time and another time on
>Friday. Thursday afternoon I had another event I was involved in which I had
>already notified everyone about, and because Internet connectivity was hard
>for me at Kram and my hotel, and so I was not informed and could not
>participate (I checked that CS notice board daily but this was not used by
>IG caucus and we did not even know there was an IG caucus room as this was
>not announced) Only those in the small group seem to know. I saw this even
>in Geneva Prepcom, where meetings were constantly being cancelled changed
>etc by email and those of us without connectivity were excluded).
>
>4) we need one or two coordinators who understand the role and function of a
>coordinator i.e. need for open and transparent processes and MORE
>IMPORTANTLY, do not have any personal agenda that overrides how you
>coordinate. Coordinators should be more committed to  ensuring open and
>transparent positions for everyone to be heard rather than pushing their own
>agendas, therefore keeping meeting times as much as possible and keeping
>process etc. There should also be greater sensitivity to people who may not
>have easy access to connectivity for various reasons especially when
>physically at conferences, and also that people from different cultures or
>parts of the world may see issues differently. It is also important that
>whilst heavy negotiations are going on, that instead of both coordinators
>being in the negotiating room and meetings getting cancelled, one should
>keep meeting times to ensure consistency etc. In other words, coordinators
>should not also be the negotiators at the same time. This messes up the
>process of keeping consistency, openness, transparency etc for those who may
>not be as connected as others.
>
>I am comfortable and hope that Adam stays on, but am concerned about the
>other statements which makes me feel that there is no comfort or skills to
>hear and include new players. The Information Society grows everyday and we
>have to live with new players and even "old" ones who may not have joined
>the clique sooner.
>
>I offer these quick food for thought since I feel that Guru's email has
>validity and may represent those of many others. I was funnily kept better
>informed through my government delegation than through civil society. Not
>everyone has this benefit and we need to make sure if we are to speak for
>CS, we need to find a way to include and allow as many CS to participate as
>possible.
>
>I do understand that during negotiations, time is of the essence but we
>should not compromise process at the expense of making something happen. If
>however people prefer compromising process to enable some CS viewpoints to
>be expressed, then it would be best to split up into several working groups
>within IG Caucus into working groups based on region e.g.. Asia, Africa, etc
>or according to issues e.g. privacy, security etc. This way we do not all
>have to agree on everything and we do not end up with a list that is more
>focused on getting results (having clear objectives and process spelt out
>ahead of time as Avri suggested).
>
>I therefore hope we can give some thought on form, process and substance so
>we can be more effective at Athens in May/July 2006.
>
>Regards,
>Laina
>
>PS Finally back home and finally connected to the Internet again!!!
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
>Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:24 PM
>To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues
>
>Guru:
>As I understand Jeanette's position it is more the expression of frustration
>at the extreme difficulty of trying to get coherent positions out of CS
>organs, when you have an open list in which someone who joined yesterday
>mixes with people who have been talking about an issue three years, two
>years, 8 months, etc. I know for a FACT that Jeanette supports an open list
>and expanding participation in the caucus.
>
>Obvioously it's important to get agreed, consensus positions from the caucus
>when possible - especially about organizational issues and statements. As I
>have discussed with her, the real issue here is not the "disruption" of new
>participants, but the lack of procedures for voting or some other collective
>decision making mechanism.
>
>>>>  "Guru at ITforChange.net" <guru at itforchange.net> 11/18/2005 8:49:16 AM
>>>>
>Hi,
>
>I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting ..
>
>While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the third time
>in two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working for a long
>time with its members achieving consensus and how in the recent past, after
>
>PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process. In the
>CRIS meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in the forum
>that such things do not happen'
>
>In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to her
>view, saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to have
>different views and perspectives.
>
>I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be propagated
>by a person moderating the caucus.
>
>It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the process. I
>
>suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would like
>
>these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be asked to stop
>making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf of the IG
>caucus.
>
>Guru
>
>--
>regards
>Guru
>IT for Change
>www.ITforChange.net
>Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance